WWYD - Possible insubordination

[Anonymous]

Here's the situation, my employee and I have a stressed relationship. He is very cocky, acts like a know-it-all, and treats me like a colleague rather than supervisor. He gets very defensive when I correct something he's done so it's gotten to the point where I really hesitate to correct him (I'll correct factual and grammatical errors, but if its style or professional corrections, I think about it more and second guess myself).

For example, When I email him "you need to add XYZ to the agenda and coordinate with [staff] to find out what time XYZ will speak" he'll always respond with an argument or excuse or reason why he did things his way, "I'm already prepared for [staff] to come. They are coming at 10:00 and I'll just stop the discussion to talk about XYZ.

When another supervisor or boss or someone says the same thing to him, his response is always "okay, will do."

I annoys the crap out of me.

He's also made statements that his degree is more advanced than mine (it's not) and that I micromanage him too much.

Today, he sent my boss a document for review and blind copied me on it). In the email he said that 2 colleagues reviewed and edited his work and he was sending it to my boss for review approval.

My boss also forwards me the email (didn't know my employee bcc'd me on it) and asks why I didn't review it? in other words, I'm in trouble for "letting" my employee send something up the ranks that I didn't review.

A few minutes later, he sends the original email to me and adds [my boss] asked that I review it before she looks at it.

I know exactly what he was trying to do - circumvent me and deal with my boss.

Would you make this a big deal and tell him that from now on he needs to go through me before sending anything to the big boss or do you think he got the message because my boss already told him she's not reviewing unless I see it.

What's funny (sad funny) is that after I made edits to the document, he sent it back to my boss but HAD to add that I only made minor edits. I know the way his mind works and he's trying to subtly tell my boss that I didn't need to review.

I know it sounds like I'm obsessing over a little thing, but trust me when I say that this guy is VERY difficult to work with. He argues every point with me and will never just do what I ask, he tries to get away with as little work as possible and tries to "catch" me in mistakes, oversights or other things. It gets old and tiring fast.

WWYD?

[Anonymous]

Get rid of him. At will employment. Get a direct report who makes your life easier.

[Anonymous]

Yes I would tell the guy that he needs to ensure he follows proper protocol and send to you first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the situation, my employee and I have a stressed relationship. He is very cocky, acts like a know-it-all, and treats me like a colleague rather than supervisor. He gets very defensive when I correct something he's done so it's gotten to the point where I really hesitate to correct him (I'll correct factual and grammatical errors, but if its style or professional corrections, I think about it more and second guess myself).

For example, When I email him "you need to add XYZ to the agenda and coordinate with [staff] to find out what time XYZ will speak" he'll always respond with an argument or excuse or reason why he did things his way, "I'm already prepared for [staff] to come. They are coming at 10:00 and I'll just stop the discussion to talk about XYZ.

When another supervisor or boss or someone says the same thing to him, his response is always "okay, will do."

I annoys the crap out of me.

He's also made statements that his degree is more advanced than mine (it's not) and that I micromanage him too much.

Today, he sent my boss a document for review and blind copied me on it). In the email he said that 2 colleagues reviewed and edited his work and he was sending it to my boss for review approval.

My boss also forwards me the email (didn't know my employee bcc'd me on it) and asks why I didn't review it? in other words, I'm in trouble for "letting" my employee send something up the ranks that I didn't review.

A few minutes later, he sends the original email to me and adds [my boss] asked that I review it before she looks at it.

I know exactly what he was trying to do - circumvent me and deal with my boss.

Would you make this a big deal and tell him that from now on he needs to go through me before sending anything to the big boss or do you think he got the message because my boss already told him she's not reviewing unless I see it.

What's funny (sad funny) is that after I made edits to the document, he sent it back to my boss but HAD to add that I only made minor edits. I know the way his mind works and he's trying to subtly tell my boss that I didn't need to review.

I know it sounds like I'm obsessing over a little thing, but trust me when I say that this guy is VERY difficult to work with. He argues every point with me and will never just do what I ask, he tries to get away with as little work as possible and tries to "catch" me in mistakes, oversights or other things. It gets old and tiring fast.

WWYD?

it doesn't not sound minor at all. it sounds like a major headache. how is your relationship with your boss? how is his standing among others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of him. At will employment. Get a direct report who makes your life easier.

if this is a possibility - yes, try to get him fired.

[Anonymous]

I'm in a similar situation. Yes. How can you go about getting rid of him?
In my case, it's not so easy. If you can let him go, be thankful of it. I'm not so lucky.

[Anonymous]

Thanks everyone. You've confirmed what I was thinking, but as you can see, he makes me second guess myself. To answer some questions, my boss and I have a great relationship. She was the one that sent document back to him and said I needed to review. She is very smart and aware of all employees and knows his MO. SHe actually pointed out to me that he's sneaky and to watch out.

He is not as good as the other people at his level. He was actually supposed to be one level down from the others but he negotiated a higher position when he was hired and sold himself really well - we all agreed to bring him in at the next level up. The others at his level have direct experience doing the job and therefore are more seasoned. However, he thinks he's better than they are.

I can't fire him unfortunately because I would lose that position if I did.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

Not the OP, but it sounds to me like:

1) He needs to include a specific person in an event and needs to talk to someone else about that person's inclusion.
2) He should have sent the document to the OP in the first place, possibly before the other 3 people reviewed it and definitely before it went to the OP's boss.

It sounds like he doesn't want to be managed at all, actually. Not that the OP is doing a bad job of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

well, honestly because he gets it wrong when I don't tell him. And I get in trouble when he gets it wrong.

My job is to oversee his work and that's what I'm doing. I didn't even know about the document until today when all this came about. Usually there are not minor edits - I am re-drafting significant portions of his work product. And it's not grammar or style, it's adding entire sections that are relevant that he didn't bother to include.

Regarding the agenda issue - if you knew that XYZ had to be part of all meetings and when your employee shared an agenda with you that didn't include XYZ. What would you do? Would you let your employee know? That's all I did - say "hey, just make sure XYZ is included" That's not micromanaging. Micromanaging would have changed the order of the meeting items, told employee what should be included, etc. I'm being sincere here when I say - what would you do differently to ensure he does it right?

but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss

I did smile at this comment, though, because I am sure this is exactly what he thinks. It's not true, but it's funny how you picked up on exactly what he thinks. He actually thinks there's no reason for even my boss to review or approve documents. He thinks he should be able to operate in his own bubble without having to go through any approval process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

Not the OP, but it sounds to me like:

1) He needs to include a specific person in an event and needs to talk to someone else about that person's inclusion.
2) He should have sent the document to the OP in the first place, possibly before the other 3 people reviewed it and definitely before it went to the OP's boss.

It sounds like he doesn't want to be managed at all, actually. Not that the OP is doing a bad job of it.

It's hard to tell when it's one sided. But I expected a post with the title "insubordination" to be something much more serious. Yes, it does sound like he doesn't want to be managed, but it also sounds like she's not really adding anything much by managing him. If he's running the meeting, in my opinion she just should have asked "will X be there" or "just realized X needs to be there" and not prompted him further. Making "minor edits" on a document being reviewed by 3 other people is also by definition micromanaging ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

well, honestly because he gets it wrong when I don't tell him. And I get in trouble when he gets it wrong.

My job is to oversee his work and that's what I'm doing. I didn't even know about the document until today when all this came about. Usually there are not minor edits - I am re-drafting significant portions of his work product. And it's not grammar or style, it's adding entire sections that are relevant that he didn't bother to include.

Regarding the agenda issue - if you knew that XYZ had to be part of all meetings and when your employee shared an agenda with you that didn't include XYZ. What would you do? Would you let your employee know? That's all I did - say "hey, just make sure XYZ is included" That's not micromanaging. Micromanaging would have changed the order of the meeting items, told employee what should be included, etc. I'm being sincere here when I say - what would you do differently to ensure he does it right?

but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss

I did smile at this comment, though, because I am sure this is exactly what he thinks. It's not true, but it's funny how you picked up on exactly what he thinks. He actually thinks there's no reason for even my boss to review or approve documents. He thinks he should be able to operate in his own bubble without having to go through any approval process.

I'm not going to argue with you on the details, but it seems pretty clear that this is an employee who appreciates more autonomy than you're giving him. He's TOLD YOU he feels micromanaged. You're the manager, so you need to figure out how to approach this situation so you can both ensure the quality of his work, and give him the space that he needs to do a good job. If you think his work product is poor, that's a whole separate issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

Not the OP, but it sounds to me like:

1) He needs to include a specific person in an event and needs to talk to someone else about that person's inclusion.
2) He should have sent the document to the OP in the first place, possibly before the other 3 people reviewed it and definitely before it went to the OP's boss.

It sounds like he doesn't want to be managed at all, actually. Not that the OP is doing a bad job of it.

This is op and you are spot on. Especially about not wanting to be managed at all. He actually got frustrated and upset that 2 or 3 people have to approve expense reports. Granted, we do have a heavily bureaucratic company, but to react as angrily as he did was a bit over the top

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

well, honestly because he gets it wrong when I don't tell him. And I get in trouble when he gets it wrong.

My job is to oversee his work and that's what I'm doing. I didn't even know about the document until today when all this came about. Usually there are not minor edits - I am re-drafting significant portions of his work product. And it's not grammar or style, it's adding entire sections that are relevant that he didn't bother to include.

Regarding the agenda issue - if you knew that XYZ had to be part of all meetings and when your employee shared an agenda with you that didn't include XYZ. What would you do? Would you let your employee know? That's all I did - say "hey, just make sure XYZ is included" That's not micromanaging. Micromanaging would have changed the order of the meeting items, told employee what should be included, etc. I'm being sincere here when I say - what would you do differently to ensure he does it right?

but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss

I did smile at this comment, though, because I am sure this is exactly what he thinks. It's not true, but it's funny how you picked up on exactly what he thinks. He actually thinks there's no reason for even my boss to review or approve documents. He thinks he should be able to operate in his own bubble without having to go through any approval process.

I'm not going to argue with you on the details, but it seems pretty clear that this is an employee who appreciates more autonomy than you're giving him. He's TOLD YOU he feels micromanaged. You're the manager, so you need to figure out how to approach this situation so you can both ensure the quality of his work, and give him the space that he needs to do a good job. If you think his work product is poor, that's a whole separate issue.

it's clear that he feels micromanaged. it is appears that his work is subpar. he is not a superstar that is best left alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

well, honestly because he gets it wrong when I don't tell him. And I get in trouble when he gets it wrong.

My job is to oversee his work and that's what I'm doing. I didn't even know about the document until today when all this came about. Usually there are not minor edits - I am re-drafting significant portions of his work product. And it's not grammar or style, it's adding entire sections that are relevant that he didn't bother to include.

Regarding the agenda issue - if you knew that XYZ had to be part of all meetings and when your employee shared an agenda with you that didn't include XYZ. What would you do? Would you let your employee know? That's all I did - say "hey, just make sure XYZ is included" That's not micromanaging. Micromanaging would have changed the order of the meeting items, told employee what should be included, etc. I'm being sincere here when I say - what would you do differently to ensure he does it right?

but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss

I did smile at this comment, though, because I am sure this is exactly what he thinks. It's not true, but it's funny how you picked up on exactly what he thinks. He actually thinks there's no reason for even my boss to review or approve documents. He thinks he should be able to operate in his own bubble without having to go through any approval process.

I'm not going to argue with you on the details, but it seems pretty clear that this is an employee who appreciates more autonomy than you're giving him. He's TOLD YOU he feels micromanaged. You're the manager, so you need to figure out how to approach this situation so you can both ensure the quality of his work, and give him the space that he needs to do a good job. If you think his work product is poor, that's a whole separate issue.

it's clear that he feels micromanaged. it is appears that his work is subpar. he is not a superstar that is best left alone.

That's wasn't my point. My point is that OP is a manager, and she needs to, well, manage. She needs to figure out how to address his weakenesses and take advantage of his strengths. It appears that she hasn't done anything at all to communicate where she feels he is being inappropriate, starting with his inability to take criticism. These are all things that can be addressed, but only if she actually steps up and acts like a manager.